THE Federal Government may have concluded plans to push for legislators’ endorsement of electronic surveillance of telephone calls by security agencies to stem the tide of security challenges in the country.
The e-surveillance or eavesdropping will involve wire-tapping, through interception of telephone transmission by accessing the telephone signal itself.It is similar to security arrangements in countries such as the United States (U.S.), Britain, China and Israel, among other nations, scripted mainly to detect unwholesome communications that could undermine national security. It also targets drug trafficking and money laundering.
Currently, a bill to that effect is being drafted for the National Assembly, with the current security challenges prompting the authorities to lobby the lawmakers to fast-track its passage.
When passed, the law would ensure codification of messages for easy interception by security agencies, which would also promote information sharing on a national security network to checkmate unwholesome plans that could promote insecurity in the country.
Telephone operators have however expressed reservations about the bill, stressing that it could compromise the privacy law currently operating in the country to protect phone users.
MTN pointed out in a statement from its head office yesterday that the plan needs to safeguard against bugging by unauthorised persons.
“MTN Nigeria’s network is subject to the same standard protocol that pertains across the world and cannot be intercepted by unauthorised persons. The company goes to extraordinary lengths to protect the confidentiality of its customers and data or call information are judiciously protected in strict compliance with the relevant laws,” the statement added.
The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) would however not confirm the security eavesdropping plan, even as the agency affirmed an ongoing process to enact a law of Lawful Interception in the country.
In an interview yesterday in Abuja, Executive Commissioner, (Technical Services), Dr. Bashir Gwandu, told The Guardian that the order would not be effected until after its passage by the National Assembly.
Gwandu noted that in other countries where this is done, a court order must be obtained, adding that after the exercise, the security agency in question is still required to report back to the court or to the National Assembly with findings, for check and balances.
Also, Head, Public Affairs Unit of the commission, Rueben Muoka, told The Guardian that the commission has no power currently to give any such order to the security agencies, adding that as part of measures to fight crimes being perpetrated through the phone, there is an ongoing process to enact a law of Lawful Interception in the country.
Muoka noted that the law is not meant to invade into people’s privacy but to intercept criminal tendencies.
He said: “This doesn’t mean bulging people’s lines but to empower security agencies to intercept criminal tendencies using phones. If anybody is being tracked for criminal offence, the law, when enacted, would empower security agencies after certain procedures have been fulfilled to intercept.”
“There is no law that is made to infringe on people’s rights because they also have the right to challenge any infringement in the law court. This is democracy, so no law would be made to violate anybody’s rights but there is also a limit to every right.”
In U.S., there were 2,379 authorised wiretaps in 2009, targeted mainly at drug pushing through mobile phone calls. Each authorised wiretap captured communications of about 133 individuals lasting an average of 42 days.
Information gathered from the wiretaps led to 4,537 arrests and 678 convictions.
The statistics did not include terrorism-related wiretaps or those conducted through the National Security Agency (NSA’s) warrantless wiretapping programme.
Rising terrorism threats in U.S. have upscaled NSA’s electronic surveillance in recent times, with the agency’s mandate being widened as a foil against security slips.
In the U.S., federal law enforcement officials may tap telephone lines only after showing “probable cause” of unlawful activity and obtaining a court order. This unlawful activity must involve certain specified violations. The court order must limit the surveillance to communications related to the unlawful activity and to a specific period of time, usually 30 days. (Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2516).
Until recently, California wiretapping laws were much more restrictive, prohibiting all wiretaps without the consent of all parties to the conversation, except for investigations involving certain controlled substances violations (California Penal Code 629; 629.02; 631). However, as of January 1, 1996, the State Legislature amended this law to allow state law enforcement officials to obtain wiretaps in investigations involving murder, solicitation to commit murder, aggravated kidnapping, crimes involving bombings, and conspiracy to commit any of these offences. This law is intended to bring California wiretapping law more in line with the federal law. (California Penal Code 629 et. seq.)
Courts have held that the California law does not apply to wiretaps by federal agents authorised by a valid federal warrant. For example, federal agents may go to federal court and obtain a warrant to place a wiretap in California, even though state officials may be barred by state law from obtaining a wiretap under similar circumstances.
Both federal and California law enforcement officials may eavesdrop on and record telephone conversations without a court order under the so-called “one party consent provision” (18 USC 2511(2)(s); California Penal Code 633). In other words, if state or federal authorities have the consent of one party to a conversation (such as a government informant), the conversation may be monitored. This provision applies only to eavesdropping by law enforcement officials.
SOURCE: Guardian Newspaper, 5 October 2011. http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/
it is a good development for the insecurity problems in our country.. the NASS should not insistent to sign in into law.. we need it immediately.. every technology has its limitation, but the advantages are always very productive..
ReplyDelete